The most conventional approach to unification right now is string theory, which suggests that the fundamental particles are not actually fundamental at all, but are rather all different expressions of one thing: a string. Different vibrational modes let us “see” different things, so one vibration shows us an electron, another a proton, and so on*.
But Lisi says he doesn’t like it because it lacks elegance. He says that when he started to play around with the E8 Lie group structure, it seemed to help the disparate pieces of our knowledge – fundamental forces, particles and so on – fit neatly together.
“It would be kind of nice if it all made sense, mathematically anyway,” he is quoted as saying. “It’s nice to think that there’s a bigger picture that’s beautiful and that we’re all a part of it.”
The “exceptionally simple theory of everything,” proposed by a surfing physicist in 2007, does not hold water, says Emory University mathematician Skip Garibaldi.
Garibaldi did the math to disprove the theory, which involves a mysterious structure known as E8. The resulting paper, co-authored by physicist Jacques Distler of the University of Texas, will appear in an upcoming issue of Communications in Mathematical Physics.
“The beautiful thing about math and physics is that it is not subjective,” says Garibaldi. “I wanted a peer-reviewed paper published, so that the scientific literature provides an accurate state of affairs, to help clear up confusion among the lay public on this topic.”
In November of 2007, physicist Garrett Lisi published an online paper entitled “An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything.” Lisi spent much of his time surfing in Hawaii, adding a bit of color to the story surrounding the theory. Although his paper was not peer-reviewed, and Lisi himself commented that his theory was still in development, the idea was widely reported in the media, under attention-grabbing headlines like “Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything.”
Maybe, maybe not:
Yes, I’m going to mention THAT interminable book of mine again or at least quote from it. The two protagonists are at the end of the earth’s allotted timespan and have been ‘beamed up’ to an orb.
Below, over Har Megiddon, humanity is being mass slaughtered, blood flows down to the Mediterranean, the Kishon is fetid:
Gabriella returned and with a gesture, invited them to continue the questions.
Nikki opened. ‘Why can’t you help those people still on earth – just because they don’t believe, they must die?’
‘Inside both of you is … let me find a word you would understand in human terms … let’s call it a code, an embedded code -’
‘Who embedded it?’
‘Who wrote your DNA? This code alerts us, enables us to assist you, keeps you alive, even now. Without that code, we have no communication channel and we have no mechanism by which we can send aid your way.’
You might expect that I, someone who believes in what Christianity is about without being particularly good at it, would dismiss E8 out of hand, dismiss the Book of Enoch, dismiss string theory but I ask why?
Why can’t E8 be a not bad theoretical model, coming from a different perspective?
To me, one key question is – is it trying to nullify and deny a metaphysical dimension as described in the NT or is it trying to explain it with an open mind?
Another key question is whether to blindly believe a perverted version of reality, as an AOC does, then try to corrupt key NT precepts, key socio-economic precepts as well, as this Pope now does, making equivalent his supposed faith and Islam – to make something ‘fluid’, e.g. gender fluid, when it is not fluid at all but down to DNA – that is indeed perverted, that is relativism writ large.
The Bernoulli effect is real and works for a sailboat but it is not strictly that which induces flow – this is known, there are other factors but still – it’s a good working model.
I believe in that sort of science, it is rigid in method but some things must be, due to our limited perception as humans, theoretical. If you accept a model such as E8, then why would you not accept other unprovable models on psychological grounds?
This I take up in a post on April 1st, called Religion. There is much religion at, for example, CERN. And what did happen at the LHC that no one is speaking of?